| Subject: |
|
Recap |
| Name: |
|
whoisyourcreator |
| Date Posted: |
|
Apr 16, 08 - 7:17 AM |
| IP Address: |
|
75.72.61.158 |
| Email: |
|
info@whoisyourcreator |
| Message: |
|
Here is the original post:
"First, I am a strong Christian, however, I do have a question that always has troubled me. If Adam was the first man created by God, how do we explain the evidence of man found from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago? I would love your insight. Thanks in advance."
Refer to my below response in which summarizes that:
1. Neandert(h)als were fully human
2. Dating techiques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. (The KEY words being "random' and "spontaneous.")
3. If you wish (since I suspect that you created the original post), name a specific specie and I'll go over the one with you. Otherwise, "evidence of man from the Stone age nearly 12,000 years ago" is too vague to address.
My original post:
Please refer to the research papers below and you will see that Neandertals are human and more than likely a separate race (microevolution).
1. Neandertals have the manual dexterity of modern humans:
“Despite their ability to make and use stone tools, Neanderthals were presumed to have had limited manual dexterity on the basis of the anatomy of their thumb and forefinger1 — a contention that has been called into question …
We find that these digits could make tip-to-tip contact, and conclude that manual dexterity in Neanderthals was probably not significantly different from that of modern humans.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6930/full/422395a.html
2. Neandertals had hyoid bones (necessary for speech) that are indistinguishable from modern humans:
“Although no one had explicitly predicted what a Neandertal hyoid would look like, few were really surprised when it turned out to be a slightly enlarged version of a human hyoid and nothing like an ape hyoid … . Many anthropologists came to believe that Neandertals could have spoken any modern human language, whatever their accent may have been.”
The Neandertals – changing the image of mankind, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, p. 391, 1993
3. DNA analysis shows Neandertal DNA more closed related to recent ‘modern-human’ DNA than older ‘modern-human’ DNA. (Please note that mitochondrial DNA evaluations are NOT completely reliable.)
“He and his colleagues analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 10 modern-human fossils ranging in age from about 2,000 to 62,000 years. Genetic material from the oldest specimen, which was found at Lake Mungo in southeastern Australia, differs more from that of living people than do the previously isolated Neandertal sequences, the researchers contend. Mitochondrial DNA from the other, younger Australian fossils closely resembles that of humans today, they find.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_71191510
4. Neandertals had the same brain size:
“Although Neandertals' brains were roughly the same size as those of modern people, they often have been portrayed as lacking the language skills, foresight, creativity, and other cognitive abilities of modern humans.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n5_v154/ai_21015206
5. Fossil dating techniques are based on statistical assumptions of random and spontaneous radioactive decay, thus discrepancies are the rule, not the exception. In addition, some zealous evolutionists openly commit fraud to advance their cause:
“HISTORIANS OF THE STONE AGE FEAR THAT they will have to rip up their theories about Neanderthal man after doubt has been cast on carbon dating of sleletons by a leading German anthropologist.”
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146411784
“Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years. Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750. The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346676/posts
Replies:--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Replying to: What was it about my last comment made it clear that I didn't read your whole post? Can you explain to me what I'm missing, because your post didn't really make that clear either.
Thanks in advance. |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Forum
bravenet.com
